Peace: A New Paradigm
Part 1

Introduction-

Today, despite
abundant and daily evidence of the absence of peace,
most of us would agree that we would prefer to have
peace in our personal and global life--yet, many would
say, despite a desire for peace, that peace could
never become a normal condition of human life. Yet,
consider how our views about peace have changed in
this century.

1959 Nobel Peace Laureate,
British statesman, Philip Noel-Baker wrote in 1965:
"...before World War I the response to a question
about peace would have been very different. Many people,
including government leaders, would have agreed with
German Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke's words, 'Perpetual
peace is a dream, and it is not even a beautiful dream.'
Or they might have repeated the words of British essayist
John Ruskin, 'War is the foundation of all high virtues
and faculties of men.'. Such people pointed out that
throughout recorded history, war--organized conflict
between groups, tribes, cities, and nations--had been
a constant feature of human society. They believed
that military success was the highest of human achievements
and that armed might was the measure of national geatness
and prestige. In support of their beliefs they argued--and
a handful of miltarists still argue--along the following
line of reasoning: (1) that man is by nature a fighting
animal; (2) that his progress has been achieved by
the survival of the fittest in the unending struggle
for wealth and power; (3) that stable peace is, therefore,
contrary to the decisive forces in human evolution;
and (4) that, if stable peace could be achieved, man's
worth and man's achievement would decline. As things
have been in the past, the militarists say, so they
must be in the future. They conclude that because
there always have been wars, there always will be
wars.

British biologist Sir Wilfrid
Le Gros Clark roundly denied this proposition (that
man is a fighting animal). Man, said Sir Wilfrid,
by a process of evolution over millions of years,
has become the dominant species among hundreds of
thousands of other species. He has done so not because
he is a fighter, but on the contrary, because he has
a gift of 'altruism' and a capacity for 'cooperativeness'
possessed by no other species. Sir Wilfrid emphasized
that altruism and cooperativeness are the driving
forces of man's fabulous progress, the secret of his
success.

Biologist, Sir Julian Huxley,
has written: 'The biologist denies emphatically that
there are human war instincts, either to make war
in a particular way, or to make war in general.' He
further stated: 'The biologist is able to say with
assurance that war is not a general law of life, but
an exceedingly rare biological phenomenon.' The militarists'
romance is bad history. War has not promoted human
progress. How many of the ablest and noblest human
beings have perished in war before they could make
their proper contribution to man's advance? How many
of the most gifted peoples have been exterminated
by genocide or have been subjugated by slavery?

Many historians have overestimated
the importance of warriors in human evolution. Napoleon
was one of the few who made a positive political,
legal and social contribution to human progress.

Yet, as has been pointed
out by American writer Henry J. Taylor, the invention
of the steam engine during the Napoleonic period,
'was a thousand times more important to the human
race than Napoleon or the Napoleonic Wars.'." Yet
there remain: wars of aggression, oppression, attrition,
liberation--wars for ideological or religious supremacy,
limited wars, wars in the national interest, pre-emptive
wars, race wars and wars in the name of defense of
country. National and global treasuries are emptied
and tens of thousands continue to die as a result
of wars. hatred, competition and genocide.

Why, if logic, intuition,
reason and biology agree that peace is vastly preferable
to war, do we not have the general perception that
peace is exerting, in useful, significant and powerful
ways, its natural supremacy over war? Why do so many
continue to regard peace and peace efforts/work as
being "pie-in-the-sky" or "the impossible dream"--the
province of a few dreamy-eyed, out-of-touch-with-reality
do-gooders and malcontents? Why is the subject of
peace given so little attention in our schools, public/political
discourse and public media? Why is peace so often
defined in the public mind, as no more than the "absence
of war"? Why do so many, associate the term, Peace,
with descriptors such as--dangerous, weak, pointless,
impotent, fantastic, impossible and failure?

These are important questions
for our consideration and action. Our ability to promote,
and make more fecund and successful, the quest for
an enduring peace, in significant ways, hinges in
large part on our success at transforming general
perceptions and beliefs about peace--from general
apathy to general engagement and support.

Redefining
Peace-

How might this be done?
I offer to the reader several ideas which may prove
useful; the first of which is an updated, revised,
expanded and more concise definition of peace. We
need to state and define clearly, why peace is so
much more than the "absence of war". Earlier in this
article we noted that biologists deny there are human
war instincts, and, that war is an exceeding rare
biological phenomenon. Sir Wilfrid stated that the
secret to man's success has been the gift of
altrusim and a capacity for cooperativeness.

Therefore, it is normal
and natural for humankind to be at peace, and manifesting
its altrusim through cooperation. This condition is
requisite for continuing man's progress and success.
Derivative of the above, we may then define peace
as: "...that human condition which is a general and
normal human biological behavior, and accompanied
by altruism and the capacity for cooperativeness as
driving forces of human progress and success--and
which rejects war, armed conflict or violence between
or amongst parties as an acceptable or normal biological
human behavior for the attainment of personal or communal
gain".

Next, we turn to the United
Nations Charter and its purposes, for explication,
refinement to practice, expansion and clarification
of the meaning and definition of peace. The United
Nations, a global governmental body, which seeks to
preserve, maintain and promote global peace through
the implementation of its charter, makes a further
contribution to the definition of peace. That charter
includes many elements deemed essential and integral
to the success of its mandate for global peacemaking
and peacekeeping. "The (United Nations) Charter sets
forth the purposes of the United Nations as the maintenance
of international peace and security, the development
of friendly relations between states, and the achievment
of cooperation in solving international economic,
social, cultural, and humanitarian problems. It expresses
a strong hope for the equality of all men and the
expansion of basic freedoms."

In furtherance then, of
a yet larger and more inclusive definition of peace,
we restate, and include, the following:

(1) Minimally, peace is--that
human condition which is a general and normal biological
human behavior, accompanied by altruism and the capacity
for cooperativeness as driving forces of human progress
and success; and includes the absence of, and rejection
of war, armed conflict or violence between or amongst
parties as an acceptable or general and normal behavior
for the attainment of personal or communal gains;

(2) attainment of peace,
requires at least: maintenance of international peace
and security, development of friendly relations between
states, achievement of cooperation in solving international
economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems,
and hope for the realization of the equality of all
humans and the continuing expansion of basic freedoms
to all of humanity; and,

(3) "...the understanding
that peace is both inner and outer. It is a condition
of consciousness, a state of being and becoming which
involves cognition, conation and affection. In its
integral stage it has a contentment and fulfillment
because it is its own witness and has a calm and a
repose and a balance of the intelligence of the head
and the heart, an intuitive understanding that is
born of wisdom and compassion, a harmony that transcends
opposites or contraries and says without speaking,
knows without looking, and is without doing. Peace
in the integral being is consciousness of love and
light." (contributed by Dr. Vasant V. Merchant, Editor,
The International Journal of Humanities and Peace),
and lastly (but not finally),

(4) To be enduring, peace
must include minimally, the following attributes:
resource sufficiency, cooperation, freedom from ignorance
and illiteracy; personal and communal opportunities,
compassion and caring for others, behaviors and actions
that result in all parties "winning", renewable, sustainable
energy--sufficient hope, love and prosperity for all,
and prospects for the "good life" for all.

We now have an expanded
(albeit, not exhaustive) global, spiritual, meta-physical,
physical, philosophical, biological, anthropological,
economic, social, political, natural and operational
definition of peace. Peace is defined as being
a normal, natual and essential condition for the continued
and continuing progression of all humanity toward
100% success.

Like perennial wild flowers
given the right conditions of climate and nature,
peace is ever-recurring at various times and places--in
greater and lesser degrees--throughout the human community.
Peace and its constituent
qualities of sufficiency, altruism, cooperation, hope,
love and serenity remain life-sustaining and anti-entropic--our
teacher of the "ways", our "beacon" for success and
survival--our preferred and natural state.